Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 1, 2012, 2:44 p.m. EST by LetsGetReal
(1420)
from Grants, NM
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

by Michael Kelley | Nov. 29, 2012,

At first glance it looked like the 2013 version National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) did more to protect Americans against indefinite detention. We and several other news organizations reported as much yesterday.

But on closer examination the new NDAA actually makes it EASIER to detain citizens indefinitely.

Here's the added clause in question:

“Nothing in the AUMF or the 2012 NDAA shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the AUMF and who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights.”

Yesterday we focused on the line "nothing ... shall be construed to deny ... any constitutional Rights ..."

But today we offer another interpretation from Bruce Afran, a lawyer for the group of journalists and activists suing the government over the 2012 NDAA.

Afran explained that the new provision gives U.S. citizens a right to go to civilian (i.e. Article III) court based on "any [applicable] constitutional rights," but since there are are no rules in place to exercise this right, detained U.S. citizens currently have no way to gain access to lawyers, family or the court itself once they are detained within the military.

"The biggest thing about the [2012] NDAA was that you weren't getting a trial ... Nothing in here says that you'll make it to an Article III court so it literally does nothing," Dan Johnson, founder of People Against the NDAA, told BI. "It's a bunch of words, basically,"

Afran noted that the newest version actually goes further than the NDAA that's now in effect.

"The new statute actually states that persons lawfully in the U.S. can be detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF]. The original (the statute we are fighting in court) never went that far," Afran said. "Therefore, under the guise of supposedly adding protection to Americans, the new statute actually expands the AUMF to civilians in the U.S."

6 Comments

Bradley Manning is an American who has been in solitary military confinement for almost 3 years. Without a trial. He's finally about to get a trial after years of protests and this man suffering for exposing REAL crimes.

You're way off base here... first, they are saying the protection of a writ is afforded; secondly they are stating that in the event Congress creates an inferior court for this purpose, that Constitutional rights must be afforded. So it does address Leftist concerns of detaining terrorist peoples indefinitely without charge.